September 30, 2025 • 47 mins
Love the show? Text us your feedback!
Recently many Americans have been shocked to learn more about organ donation. The Department of Health and Human Services released a report detailing examples of systematic disregard for human life in organ donation. This week Brad and Victor are joined by Dr. Heidi Klessig a leading expert on the dangers of organ donation for part one of exposing the shocking dangers of organ donation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 01 (00:03):
The public goes to the Department of Motor Vehicles
and they're asked, Do you wantto be an organ donor?
And they look at the brightlycolored posters that say, you
know, give the gift of life, bea good citizen.
And they're being asked to makeprobably one of the biggest
medical decisions of their lifeby someone at the DMV without
any type of information.
Speaker 00 (00:29):
Welcome back to Straight Talk on Life Issues.
I'm Victor Nievis.
As always, joined by BradMattis, president of Life Issues
Institute.
It's great to have you with usfor a very important
conversation on organ donation.
Speaker 02 (00:41):
Yeah, Victor, imagine you're lying in a
hospital bed, unable tocommunicate in any way.
You can hear everything goingon around you, but you can't
move or talk.
And then you hear the doctorsay your brain dead.
Speaker 00 (00:59):
Unfortunately, one that we know people have
experienced.
And you know, while most peopleassume that organs can only be
removed or transplanted afterall efforts to save the donor's
life have been exhausted, weknow that's not the case.
Organ donation has changed.
Speaker 02 (01:16):
It absolutely has.
And now a person whose braininjured and considered close to
death that doesn't necessarilymeet the criteria for brain
death may still qualify as anorgan donor.
Speaker 00 (01:29):
And you know, for organs to be considered viable,
the patient must be breathing,the heart must be pumping, and
the harvest cannot wait fordeath in the way that the public
perceives death.
Let's jump into it today withour guest, Dr.
Heidi Klesig.
She attended medical school atUW Madison, where she completed
a residency program inanesthesiology.
(01:50):
She was a founding partner ofthe Pain Clinic of Northwestern
Wisconsin and an instructor forthe International Spinal
Injection Society.
She now writes and speaks onthe ethics or lack thereof of
organ donation andtransplantation.
Dr.
Klesig, welcome to the show.
Speaker 01 (02:06):
Thank you so much for inviting me.
I'm delighted to be here.
Speaker 02 (02:19):
This is a very interesting topic that I'm sure
many of our listeners haveprobably never thought of.
So, first of all, I'd like toask is organ donation today
ethical or are lines beingcrossed in zeal to harvest those
organs and short supply?
Speaker 01 (02:36):
You know, organ donation is a big subject, and
there are ways to do itethically, but by and large,
what's going on is the public isbeing not informed about what
actually is happening behind theoperating room doors.
People who have been givendiagnoses like brain death are
(02:57):
being removed from ventilatorsand used as organ donors while
they are still alive.
Brain death has never had anyscientific basis.
It's a ethical choicemasquerading as a medical fact.
Speaker 02 (03:10):
Well, before we leave that topic, let's get into
the diagnosis of brain death.
Why is it that you are not fondof that?
Speaker 01 (03:18):
Well, I'll tell you, it sort of blindsided me.
I'll tell you how I learnedabout this myself.
When I was an anesthesiologyresident studying to become an
anesthesiologist, I came in fornight call one night and
reported for duty.
And they said, Klesig, gladyou're here.
We have a brain dead man up inICU, and we want you to come and
take him down for an organharvesting.
(03:39):
And I was a little stunned.
I sort of remembered that I hadheard a lecture about brain
death somewhere along the line,but I didn't have all the facts
right at my fingertips.
So I said to the doctor, Oh,brain death, huh?
Well, is there anythingdifferent about this I need to
know?
And he kind of laughed and herolled his eyes and said, Just
be sure someone has declared himbrain dead.
(04:02):
You know how eager thetransplant team can be.
Well, that wasn't veryreassuring.
So I went up to see my patient.
And you know, when I saw him inthe ICU, he looked like every
other ICU patient I had takencare of, and in fact, better
than most.
He was a young man about my ownage.
He had a motorcycle accident,he had a severe brain injury,
and yes, the neurologist haddeclared him to be brain dead.
(04:25):
But when I went to look at him,he was warm, he was breathing
with the help of a ventilator.
He had an excellent heart rateand blood pressure.
He had almost 100% oxygensaturation in his blood.
His skin was warm and supple.
He was making urine.
I mean, he he did not lookdead.
So I went back down to theoperating room and I found the
anesthesiologist who was goingto be supervising me for the
(04:47):
case.
And I presented it to him.
And he said, All right, what'syour anesthetic plan of care?
Well, you know, I was sobrainwashed at the time.
I mean, they told me the manwas dead.
And so, despite the evidence ofmy eyes, I believed my
authority.
So I said, Well, I think I'lluse a paralyzing agent so he
doesn't move during the surgery,right?
Now, think about that.
Why should we have to worryabout a dead person moving?
(05:10):
But I like, you know, I was ina state of cognitive dissonance,
I guess, at the time.
So I said, I'm going to use aparalyzing agent because, you
know, surgeons get kind ofcrabby when people are moving
and they're trying to operate.
And then I think I'll give himum some fentanyl as a powerful
painkiller to blunt any heartrate or blood pressure responses
that might damage his organs.
(05:31):
So my attendant looked at meand he said, Well, are you going
to give a drug to blockconsciousness?
I was a little stunned by that.
I said, Why would I do that?
Isn't he dead?
And he just gave me a long,slow look over his surgical mask
and he said, Why don't you giveone just in case?
And he walked away.
Well, I'll tell you, you know,to my shame and regret, I did
(05:53):
what I was told.
I mean, I knew something waswrong about this, but all my
authorities were telling me thisis the way we do it, this is
how it's done.
The operating room team wasscrubbed and ready to go, and I
just should have put up more ofa fuss, but I did what I was
told.
I took him to the operatingroom.
I gave him the anesthetic wehad discussed.
He reacted just like any otherpatient to the incisions and the
(06:18):
bone saws and the organremoval.
He required the same types andamounts of anesthesia as anyone
else.
And honestly, it's my regretover this incident that
motivates me now to be speakingto you today and to have a
website and to write a book andto try to inform the public.
I see my role as giving thepublic a seat at the table.
(06:38):
Because when I came to researchthis for myself, I was stunned
to find that for 50, 60 years,doctors, lawyers, philosophers,
PhDs have been hotly debatingwhether brain death is death,
whether donation aftercirculatory death donors are
actually dead at the time theirorgans are procured.
(06:58):
The ethics of this new form oftransplant called normothermic
regional perfusion or NRP.
But the public is never told.
I mean, the public goes to theDepartment of Motor Vehicles and
they're asked, do you want tobe an organ donor?
And they look at the brightlycolored posters that say, you
know, give the gift of life, bea good citizen, be altruistic.
(07:19):
And they're never given anyinformed consent.
They're not told any of thedetails or the facts.
And they're being asked to makeprobably one of the biggest
medical decisions of their lifeby someone at the DMV without
any type of information.
And I think that's wrong.
So that's what I'm trying to dois raise awareness for people
so they can make an informeddecision.
Speaker 02 (07:39):
Well, isn't the definition or diagnosis of brain
death a solid medical factualdiagnosis?
Speaker 01 (07:46):
Well, funny you should say that.
You know, the the most recentAmerican Academy of Neurology
brain death guideline that justcame out in 2023, in their
methods section, they come rightout and say, because of the
lack of high quality evidence onthe subject, this is a
consensus guideline determinedby essentially three rounds of
(08:11):
anonymous voting by panelistswho are screened to screen out
anybody who might disagree.
So absolutely not.
I mean, the brain death wasstarted back in 1968.
I mean, honestly, all throughhistory, you really didn't need
a doctor to tell you whensomeone was dead.
I mean, people determine deathat home, on the battlefield, at
(08:31):
the farm.
You could tell when someone isdead, right?
Most people understand death tobe the separation of the spirit
or the soul or the lifeprinciple from the material
body.
But because we don't have anyinstruments for detecting
immaterial changes, we go withthe loss of heartbeat, the loss
of breathing, and the passage oftime.
(08:53):
And that's how people havedetermined death for millennia.
But in 1968, 13 men at HarvardMedical School put out a
landmark article in the Journalof the American Medical
Association, and it's titled ADefinition of Irreversible Coma.
So these men thought we couldchange the definition and call
(09:17):
people who have previouslyalways been believed to be
alive, people who are in a comathat doctors think are probably
irreversible, as now beingsomehow dead already.
Now, this paper, it has noscientific references.
There were no tests, there wereno studies, there is no
evidence that these people in acoma are dead.
(09:38):
The only reason they said thatmaybe we should give them this
new diagnosis was utility.
They said if we could callthese people on a ventilator
dead already, it will serve tofree up ICU bets and it will
remove the controversy ofprocuring these people's organs
to put into somebody else.
(09:59):
And so for all of its history,there really has not been any
scientific evidence for it.
But what is really useful aboutredefining people morally,
ethically, and legally as beingdead, even though they have
beating hearts, they'remetabolizing, they're making
urine, they can even deliverhealthy babies.
If you define someone as beingdead, then you, by sleight of
(10:22):
hand, you meet the requirementsof what's called the dead donor
rule.
Now, the dead donor rule is nota law, but it's a worldwide
ethical maxim.
It says people must neither bealive when organs are removed,
nor may they be killed by theprocess of organ removal.
But if you redefine people asbeing dead already, this allows
(10:45):
organ procurement to skirt thedead donor rule just by fiat, by
sleight of hand.
Speaker 00 (10:51):
So, Dr.
Klesig, it's fair to say fromwhat you've said today that what
we as lay people think of whenwe hear the phrase dead is not
what the medical establishmentis using when they procure
people's organs.
Speaker 01 (11:04):
That's correct.
You know, when most people hearthe word dead, they think dead
in the sense of, you know, mydead pet cat or dog, right?
That dead in the in the waythat, you know, a squirrel on
the highway is dead.
But when doctors are talkingabout this brain death thing,
the legal standard that has beenset up for that is called the
Uniform Determination of DeathAct.
(11:26):
And that is in force in almostall 50 states.
It says that you to have adiagnosis of brain death, there
must be the irreversiblecessation of all functions of
the entire brain, including thebrain stem.
But honestly, no AmericanAcademy of Neurology brain death
guideline has ever followed thelaw on that.
(11:48):
They don't test, in fact, allfunctions of the entire brain.
They test that you're in acoma, they test a handful of
brainstem reflexes, and theytest whether you breathe when
disconnected from yourventilator.
So, in fact, the way doctorsdiagnose, according to the
protocol, does not follow thelegal standard.
Speaker 02 (12:08):
Can you explain the process that surgeons use to
harvest organs?
Speaker 01 (12:13):
First, they need to get someone to make this
diagnosis.
And so they follow a specificprotocol that you have to be
unresponsive, right?
When they call your name orshake you, you don't respond.
But now remember,unresponsiveness is not the same
as unawareness.
There are people who areinwardly aware, sort of locked
in within themselves, but unableto respond.
(12:36):
A recent study in the NewEngland Journal of Medicine
found 25% of people who doctorsthought were unconscious
actually were inwardly aware.
So doctors are not tremendouslygood at discovering whether
you're inwardly aware or not.
We can only test whether you'reable and willing to respond.
Then they give a painfulstimulus to see if you move.
(12:58):
And if you move to the painfulstimulus, they say, well, then
you're not brain dead.
But the guidelines says that itcan sometimes be challenging to
determine whether a patient'smovement is just a reflex or if
it's intentional.
And they they actually go on totell doctors using this
protocol, if you're not sure ifyour moving patient is still
(13:20):
alive, you should ask a friend.
They say, ask a colleague, andthen and then kind of put your
heads together and decide.
I mean, how scientific is that?
Then the only neurologic examthat is done, they check uh if
your pupils respond to light,they shoot uh water in your ears
to see if it makes your eyesdizzy, they check if you cough
or gag.
These are not all the functionsof the entire brain.
(13:41):
Okay.
I mean, honestly, our brains doa lot more than that, but
that's all they test.
And then the apnea test iswhere they take you off your
ventilator for 10 to 15 minutesto see if you breathe.
And they give parameters, youknow, for your blood gas, what
it should be with that.
But the guideline actually goeson to say that selection of
targets for the apnea test isarbitrary because there is no
(14:05):
scientific data demonstrating atwhat point you would breathe if
your brain was working when youhave a brain injury.
So the whole diagnosis isincorrect.
But then, you know, whensomeone like me takes that
person to the operating room,um, we give them anesthesia just
like anyone else.
We give them a paralyzing agentso they won't move.
(14:25):
We use narcotic drugs to bluntthe responses to pain that they
will have.
I can tell you from personalexperience, when there's an
incision, the heart rate and theblood pressure go up just like
anybody else.
The surgeons then go ahead andcool off and chill down a lot of
the organs that are going to betaken out for preservation, and
(14:46):
then they they go for theorgans that they're having
targeted depending on thetechnique that's being used.
Speaker 02 (14:52):
Well, now the average person, I think, who
signs those donor cards believesthat the person dies, the heart
stops beating, the family takesa few moments to say their
goodbyes, the dead body iswheeled in a nearby room, and
then they harvest the organs.
Is that what happens?
Speaker 01 (15:10):
So there's a type of organ donation called donation
after circulatory death.
And these people are not braindead, but they're not expected
to survive, or they have decidedthat their quality of life is
unacceptable and they want tohave their care withdrawn in a
way that will allow their organsto be procured.
(15:31):
So their death is essentiallyplanned to happen in a specific
time and place.
This is really a thinly veiledform of physician-assisted
death.
So these people often have uhlarge catheters put in their
groin and they're given drugslike blood thinners, uh, heparin
to preserve the organs, thingsthat actually aren't very good
(15:52):
for the patient.
They have to make these peopledo not resuscitate or DNR.
So again, this is a choice.
All of these people could beresuscitated, but a decision has
been made not to resuscitatethem.
So then they are taken to theoperating room nearby, their
ventilator is disconnected andtheir medical support is
(16:12):
withdrawn, and then doctors waitfor them to die, wait for that
heart to stop.
I mean, it's really fairlyghoulish.
And in instead of dying in thearms of your family with love
surrounding you, you're takendown to the operating room with
gloved gown and masked strangerswho are sitting there waiting
for you to pass away so they canbegin removing parts of you.
(16:33):
After your heart stops, doctorsgive a two to five minute
no-touch or wait period to besure your heart doesn't restart.
I mean, it depends on where youlive.
In my state of Wisconsin, it'stwo minutes.
In other states, it's fiveminutes.
Whether you're dead or alive isbased kind of on your geography
more than anything else.
And then if your heart doesn'tspontaneously restart, they
(16:56):
declare you dead and they beginthe organ procurement.
But the problem with this isthat it's well documented.
I mean, in fact, everybodyknows that people are routinely
resuscitated after two to fiveminutes of cardiac arrest.
And if you could still beresuscitated, you were never
dead.
And other countries, you know,understand this.
(17:17):
This donation after circulatorydeath is banned in Finland,
Germany, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Hungary, Lithuania, and Turkey.
So again, depending on whereyou live, you might be dead or
alive on geography, not based onmedicine.
And there's a case report frommy neighboring state of Illinois
that bears this out.
A young woman with Downsyndrome in Illinois suffered a
(17:39):
brain bleed, and she wasn'tbrain dead, but her family was
told she wasn't expected tosurvive, and they were told they
could make something good comeout of their tragedy and
consented to have her organsprocured at using this donation
after circulatory deathprotocol.
So this unfortunate young womanwas taken to the operating room
and her care was withdrawn.
Once her heart stopped, thephysician reached up under the
(18:02):
sterile drapes and listened toher heart for an additional two
minutes and didn't hear anyheartbeat.
So then they began to operateto get her kidneys.
But as doctors got into herabdomen and were cutting down to
her kidneys, they noticedsuddenly that there were pulses
in the aorta and the renalarteries, and the young woman
began to gasp for breath.
Well, I mean, now what do youdo, right?
(18:24):
Here we are.
So out of pure compassion, theygave her a massive overdose of
fentanyl and lorazepam, and thepulses stopped and she stopped
breathing, and she wassubsequently pronounced dead a
second time.
But you know, when the medicalexaminer looked at this case, I
mean, he had to say this was ahomicide, is what was his
declaration.
(18:44):
She had been killed by organprocurement.
She was not dead after twominute wait time.
And that's the thing.
Dr.
Ari Jaffe, who's a doctor inCanada, has done a literature
review and found people whospontaneously resuscitated
themselves after up to 10minutes of cardiac arrest.
So we know scientifically fromthe medical literature, at 10
(19:05):
minutes you might still be ableto be resuscitated.
And some of the patients thathe studied had made a complete
recovery.
So again, two to five minutesis a travesty.
And that's in the recent NewYork Times article, they had
multiple cases of this type ofproblem.
You know, Misty Hawkins wasone, you know, and they had that
in the New York Times recentdomination of donation after
(19:28):
circulatory death.
Misty was a similar case towhat I just described, a young
woman who choked while eating asandwich and had a low oxygen
brain injury, taken to thehospital, not brain dead, but
her parents were told that shewasn't going to survive.
And they didn't want theirdaughter to suffer.
And they thought they couldhelp somebody else out.
So they consented to this DCDprotocol.
(19:49):
Misty was taken to theoperating room, disconnected
from her care.
It took her 103 minutes tobecome pulseless.
It's just like a death watch.
It's horrible to think about.
Once her heart stopped, I thinkfor her they waited the whole
five minutes, which again is notlong enough, because when
doctors then took the bone sawand saw it open her breastbone,
(20:10):
they found her heart was beatingand Misty was breathing at that
time too.
Now, the really terrible thing,you know, the doctors walked
out, left someone else to stitchher up.
It's not clear if she was evergiven any anesthesia.
And her family was never told.
The organ procurementcoordinator called her mother on
the phone and said, gee, we'rewe're sorry.
(20:31):
It just didn't work out forMisty to become an organ donor.
The family, the Hawkins family,only found out what happened to
their daughter when the NewYork Times contacted them a year
later for comment.
What a horrible way to find outwhat had been done to your
child.
I mean, this has to stop.
This is wrong.
Speaker 02 (20:50):
They're putting people down like dogs.
Speaker 01 (20:52):
Well, dogs get it better.
I mean, dogs for sure get ananesthetic.
I have anesthesia journalarticles I can show you that
talk about the anesthetic careof organ donors.
I can show you an article thatmentions how to manage their
heart rate, their bloodpressure, how to blunt, you
know, any responses that mighthurt the organs.
It does not mention one wordabout actual anesthesia.
(21:16):
And that's the problem.
You know, many of these peoplemay just get paralyzing drugs
and drugs to manage the bloodpressure and maybe awake and
aware at some level as they'rebeing dismembered to death.
This could have happened to uhZach Dunlap.
I don't know if you rememberhim.
He was a famous case.
In 2007, Zach Dunlap was ayoung man who had a four-wheel
(21:37):
ATV rollover injury.
Uh, he had a severe injury.
I mean, he had brain tissuecoming out of his ear canal,
taken to the hospital, uh,declared to be brain dead.
The helicopter was landing withthe team to procure his organs.
But his cousin, it wasn't hishealthcare team, his cousin, who
was also a nurse, didn'tbelieve Zach was dead and ran
(22:00):
his closed plastic knife alongZach's foot, and Zach withdrew.
And so his cousin called thenurse over.
Come, come, look, my cousin'smoving.
But the nurse said, Well, youknow, they teach us in brain
death school that the patientcan be moving, but they're still
dead.
So then the cousin gave asecond stimulus, and this time,
you know, Zach pretty much tooka swing at him.
And the nurse said, Oh, wait,that movement crossed the
(22:22):
midline.
That might mean he actuallyisn't dead.
So the procedure was calledoff, and Zach made a full
recovery.
I mean, he got married, he hasa little girl, he works a job.
But he told people while he waslying there, he could hear
every word.
He said, I could hear thedoctors telling my parents that
I was brain dead, that I was notgoing to survive.
And I just got mad.
(22:43):
But there was nothing I coulddo.
I couldn't move, I couldn'tspeak, I couldn't sign, all I
could do was get extremelyangry.
And this shows the gravity ofthese correctly made brain death
diagnoses.
I put correctly in scare quotesbecause, of course, none of
these people are dead.
But if you follow the protocol,supposedly it's correctly done.
Zach Dunlap's case followed theprotocol, but he could hear
(23:06):
every word.
Now, if an anesthesiologist hadtaken him to the OR and just
used paralyzing agents, can youimagine the horror?
We have no idea how many peopleare going through this.
So again, this needs to stop.
Speaker 02 (23:18):
I'm outraged.
I just don't know what to sayafter you've shared this
information.
Dr.
Klesig, what is NRP?
Speaker 01 (23:26):
There's a variation of the donation after
circulatory death protocolcalled normal thermic regional
perfusion or NRP.
And this is very controversialeven among doctors and
hospitals, though it is going oncurrently as we speak in the
United States.
So in this case, their the goalis to preserve a functional
(23:47):
heart for donation.
So what they do is they declareyou dead according to the
circulatory standard first.
They do the two to five minutewait, but they want that heart
to be in good shape.
So they want to sort ofresuscitate it.
But if they resuscitate all ofyour organs, including your
brain, you might wake up.
(24:08):
So what they start surgery withis by clamping off the
circulation to the brain to makeyou brain dead on purpose.
And then they hook you up toECMO or to a bypass machine and
they do a full resuscitation onthe organs such that your heart
starts beating again in your ownchest.
Now, how dead are you if yourheart is beating again in your
(24:31):
own chest?
The legal standard, of course,is that you are supposed to be
declared dead because you hadthe irreversible cessation of
circulatory and respiratoryfunctions.
The fact that now your heart isbeating again shows that it
really wasn't that irreversible,was it?
But now the doctors are legallycovered because now you're
(24:52):
brain dead.
They've now declared you deadaccording to the neurologic
standard because they've donethat on purpose.
Now, even the American Collegeof Physicians, the world's
largest specialty medicalorganization, called for a pause
in NRP in 2021.
They said that the burden ofproof regarding the ethical and
(25:13):
legal propriety of this practicehas not been met.
But I'm here to tell you itcontinues.
It's been since 2021, and nopause has been initiated.
I mean, this is going on allaround the United States and
around the world, though, ofcourse, it is banned in those
countries that don't allow DCD.
Additionally, Australia hasdisallowed NRP because it again,
(25:37):
ethically and legalimproprieties are going on here.
Speaker 02 (25:41):
Is there any way for family members or the patient
to be assured that this isn'thappening?
Speaker 01 (25:47):
Don't be a registered organ donor, is my
recommendation.
I think it's unsafe and unwiseto be a registered organ donor
right now.
Now, again, I wouldwholeheartedly recommend if you
have a family member that needsa kidney and it's something you
feel led to do and you're asuitable match.
Living donation in which bothdonor and recipient remain alive
(26:11):
after the procedure iscompletely moral and ethical.
I mean, it's it's anextraordinary vocation.
Nobody is called upon to risktheir life for another.
But if if you feel led to dothat, I think that's a wonderful
thing.
You know, I think that we wouldby now have much more ethical
solutions if the public had beeninformed about all the problems
(26:31):
going on with brain death,circulatory death, NRP.
Also, we would have much bettercare for people with
neurological injuries.
We have been writing off allthe hard cases and using them as
organ donors rather thanfinding innovative ways of
helping people.
You know, the other thing Ialways want to say toward you
know the end of my discussion isI want to offer a message of
(26:55):
mercy to people who have beeninvolved in this practice.
You know, doctors, nurses.
There's no way doctors andnurses can personally
investigate everything they aretaught.
The knowledge they'reresponsible for is just too
vast.
So again, most doctors andnurses simply like I did, we
accept it on authority.
Our authorities tell us it'strue and we believe it.
(27:15):
And, you know, of course, youknow, arguments based on
authority or the majority arelogical fallacies, but we have
so much information that we weare sort of forced to accept a
lot sort of on the basis of ourauthorities.
People who have given a familymember to become an organ donor,
it's not your fault that youwere deceived.
I mean, you made the bestdecision you could with the
(27:37):
information you had available atthe time and the goodness of
your heart.
It is not your fault that youweren't told these things.
And people, you know, who havereceived an organ too.
I mean, you were not told theorigin of that organ.
You were you were given not allthe facts that you might have
wanted to have to make thedecision that you did.
But we're glad you're here.
I'm not at all saying thatpeople who have received an
(27:59):
organ did something wrong, but Ido think it's wrong that people
are not being given fullyinformed consent about these
things when they enter theprocess.
And I think that needs tochange.
Speaker 00 (28:09):
That leads to my next question, which is can this
process be done in an ethicalway for organs beyond a kidney,
for a heart or things like that?
Can it be done ethically?
Speaker 01 (28:22):
You know, you can actually living donate any
organ, almost every organ exceptthe heart, right?
You can't give your heart tosomeone else.
But the the good news is atotally implantable artificial
heart is now in clinical trials.
And I think that would be awonderful way to go.
I mean, you wouldn't have to bein all the anti-rejection drugs
and have risks of infection.
And I think it would ultimatelygive people greater success
(28:45):
over time.
I was fascinated to learnrecently you can do living lung
transplants.
What they do is they take alobe of the lung from each of
two donors and put those twolobes from two donors into the
recipient.
You can give lengths ofintestine from multiple donors.
You I mean, you can give a lobeof a liver, you can give a lobe
of a pancreas.
(29:06):
I mean, there are things thatcan be done and to do this
ethically.
And I and I think those thingsshould be pushed and highlighted
and that kind of researchfurthered.
Speaker 02 (29:14):
What is your take on efforts to use peg hearts
recently?
Think that actually happened.
Speaker 01 (29:21):
Yeah, I just wrote an op-ed about that for Life
Site News.
You know, I think what's goingon the way they're doing it
right now is it's a horribleimpingement of human rights.
So what they did in Chinarecently is they took a
brain-dead man, right?
And they found that he was sostable.
He was a great host to try tosee how an animal organ would
(29:42):
work.
Now, they took pig lung andthey had genetically modified it
by inserting certain humangenes and removing certain pig
genes.
I think that's a bitproblematic.
Making sort of human pigchimeras or hybrids is ethically
questionable practice.
But this So-called brain-deadman.
He was hemodynamically stablefor the nine days that the lung
(30:06):
from the pig was put in him.
He started making antibodiesand started rejecting the pig
organ.
Now, the Orwellian doublespeakhere is simply stunning.
How can a dead person be keptalive?
How can a dead person behemodynamically stable to
support an animal organ?
How can a dead person rejectthat organ and start making
(30:29):
antibodies?
Well, you know, in point offact, the man was not dead,
right?
This is this is an egregiousbreach of human rights.
And it's not just happening inChina.
A few years ago, doctors inAmerica also implanted
genetically modified pig kidneysinto two American men who were
declared brain dead.
And these men were given topflight ICU care.
(30:52):
They were so stable, theseso-called dead men, that these
organs went, one went over amonth before they this, you
know, they decided to terminatethe experiment, sacrifice the
patient and take him to the labfor pathological study.
So this is this is veryethically questionable.
And again, you have to have alot of cognitive dissonance to
(31:13):
go with the idea that thesepeople are actually dead.
There's a lot of ethicalquestions.
The other things, just as faras the animal organs that you
asked about, I have I haveproblems with making human pig
hybrids.
I think that's ethicallyquestionable.
The first American patient toreceive a genetically modified
pig heart actually died of a pigvirus that hitched a ride on
(31:35):
that heart.
So it is a concern that wecould be introducing animal
diseases into, you know, atleast into the immunosuppressed
recipient of the organ, possiblyinto the general population.
Is this a way, you know, thatwe're going to introduce more
animal diseases into the humanpopulation?
There's a lot of questions thatreally have to be answered and
(31:57):
aren't being answered.
I mean, scientists are justcontinuing merely along trying
these things.
Speaker 00 (32:02):
Dr.
Klesig, is there's individualsout there who, out of pure
intentions, they want to be anorgan donor.
They want to help other people.
And with what we've heardtoday, obviously they're going
to be reevaluating maybe the waythat they go about doing that.
What advice do you have forthose individuals who want to
give the gift of life, as we'veall seen at the DMV, but are
(32:22):
really concerned about whatwe've just heard?
Speaker 01 (32:24):
You know, the good thing is living donation, as
I've mentioned, is a wonderfulthing to do.
And then we have not yet talkedabout tissue donation.
Now, organs, things like heart,lungs, liver, and kidneys, are
very dependent on a continuoussupply of oxygen through the
circulation.
And as soon as that stops, theorgans very quickly begin to
decompose and become unsuitablefor transplants.
(32:47):
So, in point of fact, fororgans, you cannot take an organ
from a dead person.
Tissues, however, now when adoctor says tissues, we're not
meaning puffs and Kleenex,right?
We're talking about things likeskin, bone, uh, corneas, heart
valves, this sort of thing.
Tissues are much more resilientto an absence of circulation
and can be removed from a personwhose spirit has departed, who
(33:10):
is biologically all dead.
So you can be a tissue donoronce you are biologically gone.
There are some caveats withthat.
I would not recommend that yoube a registered donor even for
tissue.
And here's why.
A reporter in Californiarecently wrote an article in the
LA Times showing that somepeople's death investigations
(33:34):
had been up-ended because organprocurement teams were able to
have access to the body before acoroner's autopsy.
So there were people like thefamily of John Flath.
He was a young man in Army ROTCwho just collapsed during a
workout.
He was a registered organ andtissue donor because he died
outside of the hospital.
(33:54):
He was not able to do organdonation, but organ procurement
took his body and they took skinbone heart valves before the
coroner could see why John haddied, leaving his family without
closure or answers because hisheart was basically so destroyed
from that tissue removal thatthe coroner could no longer tell
(34:16):
his family why John had passedaway.
The other one that the reporterin California came up with was
um Christy Rettinman, thedaughter of former Major League
Baseball player and coach MervRettenman.
She was in sort of an abusiverelationship with her boyfriend,
and there had been multiplepolice calls between the two of
them.
She came into the hospital andhad obviously had some type of
(34:38):
head injury.
She had bruises on her body.
But again, Christy was aregistered donor, and so the
organ procurement took her bodybefore the coroner's autopsy,
leaving the coroner with such ascanty corpse, I guess, the
skin, the bones, things had beenremoved, that he could no
longer say with certaintywhether her death was a
homicide.
And so justice was never servedfor the retinmans.
(35:01):
I mean, the man got awayscot-free.
So again, whereas it's allright to take tissues after
biological death, I would neverdo this as a registered donor.
Simply tell your family, yourhealthcare surrogate, put it in
your end-of-life documents thatonce all their questions are
answered, they know that yourdeath was not a result of a
(35:21):
crime.
Your family can release yourcorpse to become a tissue donor
if you would like to do this.
That is just fine.
Speaker 00 (35:28):
Where else can we find more information about
organ donation?
Speaker 01 (35:31):
You know, what I always urge people to do, you
know, none of us like to thinkabout death.
We'd rather put it off.
You know, how many of us havemade out a will?
We don't want to think aboutthese things.
But the problem with that isthen you get blindsided, right?
And if you're sitting in ahospital, you know, at the
bedside of a loved one, on aventilator, you haven't slept,
(35:52):
you haven't eaten, you're you'renot in a position to make you
know really great choices atthat point.
Your emotions are going to beraw.
So even if it's uncomfortable,I do recommend people look at
this information now.
I've written a couple of books.
Uh, the first I wrote with myco-author Christopher Bagash, R
N, and that's called HarvestingOrgans and Cherishing Life.
(36:14):
That's written for lay people.
It's very easy to understand.
I've given we give some ofthese examples I talked about
today.
My second book issemi-technical.
It's very good if you want, youknow, chapter and verse, it's
fully referenced.
If you're a doctor or a nurseor want to give it to your
doctor or nurse, it's called thebrain death fallacy.
Take a look at some of theinformation and share it and
(36:35):
talk about it and think about itand be ready.
You know, when the worst day ofyour life happens, you don't
want to be unprepared.
Speaker 02 (36:42):
Well, Dr.
Klesig, for those listeners whoare registered organ donors and
want to reverse that decisionafter hearing everything you
have to say, how do they dothat?
Speaker 01 (36:52):
On our website, if you scroll down the homepage,
you know, there is a button thatsays, How do I get off the
donor list?
And we go through how thatprocess can happen.
The other thing on that that issort of important for people to
know is that the UniformAnatomical Gict was revised in
2006, such that now you reallyneed to have a specific refusal
(37:17):
to donate.
Because if you come into thehospital and you're
incapacitated and your familycan't be found, the hospital
administrator is given the powerto donate your body on your
behalf, unless there's aspecific refusal to donate.
And this becomes important.
There's a case being sued rightnow in New York of grandmother
(37:38):
Miriam Poyas de Baldrick, had a,I think she had a bit of
dementia.
She wandered away from her homeand was struck by a subway.
She was taken to the hospital.
And even though her family saidshe had some information in her
pocket to tell people who shewas, and they had filed a, you
know, missing vulnerable adultreport, the hospital couldn't
(37:58):
find anybody.
And because Miriam didn't havea specific refusal to donate,
they took her organs.
And now the family is suingabout this.
So the other thing that we haveis we have links to our sister
organization, the HealthcareAdvocacy and Leadership
Organization or Halo Group.
And they have an excellentend-of-life document.
Plus, they have this handy uh Irefuse to donate wallet card
(38:21):
that you can keep with you inyour wallet, and on the back you
can sign and have it witnessedto show people that I am a
refusing to be an organ donor incase what happened to Grandma
Miriam would happen to you.
That way you are protected thatway as well.
Speaker 02 (38:35):
But it's not good enough just to take that
designation off your driver'slicense, is it?
Speaker 01 (38:40):
Not if you're unable to have your wishes explained
and they can't find your next ofkin.
No, it's not.
You need, according to theUniform Anatomical Gift Act, you
now need a specific refusal.
And I would even put that inyour electronic medical record
when you see your clinician nexttime.
Just ask that they add that yourefuse to be an organ donor.
It would be good to have itthere as well.
Speaker 02 (38:59):
Thank you so much, Dr.
Klestig, for joining us andsharing this wealth of
information.
Speaker 01 (39:05):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 00 (39:17):
Well, Brad, today's conversation has been many
things.
It's been very informative.
It's also been a little bitmortifying to hear these stories
and to think about how manypeople have unfortunately had
decisions made on their behalfby a medical staff that was
interested in taking theirorgans rather than saving their
(39:38):
life.
Speaker 02 (39:38):
Yeah, and you use the word mortifying.
There must be a word in theEnglish language to really
underscore that becausemortifying seems to be an
understatement regarding whatthey're doing there.
And I just find it hard tobelieve after all these years,
many physicians think that MDstands for medical deity, and
(40:01):
they're making life and deathdecisions, not in what's best
for the patient, but what's bestfor the person, the patient, to
receive those organs.
Speaker 00 (40:12):
And in doing so, it sounds like to me they're taking
advantage of people who do nothave informed consent.
But these are people who signedup to be an organ donor out of
the pureness of their heart.
They wanted to save a life,they wanted to give that gift of
life.
And rather than their selflesswillingness to do that, rather
than that being honored, it'sbeing taken advantage of.
Speaker 02 (40:33):
And I think it's important to you know, reiterate
what Dr.
Klesig said.
She's she's not blamingrecipients of organs.
She says they're not doinganything wrong, they are being
victimized as well as others,just in a different way.
They're not being told thedetails of the reality of what's
(40:54):
behind those donors.
Considering the informationthat we've shared these past two
weeks, many of you may behaving second thoughts, and I
hope you do, whether or not youwant to be a donor.
Now, it's not good enough tosimply take that insignia off
your driver's license.
What you need to do is go intoyour individual state to a
(41:16):
specific website and fill outthe proper form to be taken off.
Otherwise, they will beharvesting your organs perhaps
without your permission.
And to help you with that, wehave links to every state
website where you can removeyour name from being an organ
donor.
But Victor, it's been anabsolute honor and privilege to
(41:40):
share crucial developing storieswith our listeners every week
and in-depth ways in which wecan get that information across.
So, you, the listener, I hopeand pray that you will take what
we have given you over the lastcouple of years and share that
with other individuals, becausethen you can magnify our voice
(42:02):
in ways that will make adifference and save lives.
I'm pleased that we're endingthis my uh role in this program
every week with such acompelling program.
This is an issue I've beenconcerned about for a long time.
Since we did our initialresearch on this 10 years ago
through a TV production.
Speaker 00 (42:22):
Brad, the pro life movement has really been a
tremendous journey for you.
And this is a bit of asentimental episode since this
will be the last time thatyou'll be hosting Straight Talk
on life issues.
I know I will certainly missyou.
Our listeners will certainlymiss you as you move on to
retirement.
50 years is an inspiration tomyself and so many others, the
(42:44):
dedicated service to the babies.
And it's one of those things,Brad, I just have to imagine
when you walk through thosepearly gates, that is a well
done, my good and faithfulservant that's coming.
Speaker 02 (42:54):
Well, I'm looking forward to being surrounded by
the babies that we uh uh work tosave, that's for sure.
Speaker 00 (43:00):
So share with us just one story that's impacted
you maybe the most throughoutyour time in the pro-life
movement.
Speaker 02 (43:07):
Well, the one that I would say most impactful was
when I received a handwrittenletter from a man whose younger
brother had died by suicideafter his girlfriend had two
abortions.
And his mom found him hangingfrom the rafter in her garage.
A suicide note said he couldn'tlive with the anguish and pain
(43:28):
of losing his children toabortion.
Now, God used this letter toplace a burden and passion on my
heart for grieving fatherseverywhere.
And I became a founding memberof the Men in Abortion Network
and have lectured on thisthroughout the United States and
around the world, actually.
And the symptoms are always thesame no matter what the country
(43:50):
is.
We just can't let men, we can'tlet fathers be forgotten
victims of abortion.
They're not alone, and there'shope and there's healing.
Speaker 00 (44:00):
Absolutely.
And with that passion that youhave, I mean, you're retiring as
president of Life IssuesInstitute, but you're not going
to be able to step away from thepro-life movement.
Share with us some of yourfuture plans for pro-life
advocacy.
Speaker 02 (44:14):
Well, one thing I'm working on is to be a volunteer
snuggler.
And this is somebody who holdsbabies in the NICU of hospitals.
So for me, getting lap timewith a baby always makes it a
good day.
And of course, I'll have thehonorary title of President
Emeritus of Life IssuesInstitute, and I'll continue my
(44:35):
volunteer capacity as presidentof the International Rights to
Life Federation.
That'll probably meaninternational trips of one or
two a year.
And I will speak on men inabortion when asked, and
probably do writing.
Speaker 00 (44:49):
What would be some advice that you have for the
next generation of pro-lifeadvocates?
Speaker 02 (44:54):
Well, first of all, I'd encourage you kids to know
the history of the movement soyou can better build on its
future.
And bring your enthusiasm, yourknowledge, your technology,
your boldness to the table, anddon't let anyone tell you you
don't have a voice.
But you know, with a voicecomes great responsibility.
(45:15):
So make sure that what you do,because the stakes are so high
that you help to protect thebabies and not hinder the
collective efforts of everyone.
You know, you don't have theluxury of being sloppy or lazy
because lives are at stake.
Speaker 00 (45:31):
Absolutely.
And what would be one lastpiece of information that you
would like to share with ourlistener?
Speaker 02 (45:37):
Well, over the last 50 years, I probably served in
every capacity in the pro-lifemovement that's out there.
But I have to say it's been acomplete honor and privilege to
serve to protect babies fromabortion and to protect the
mothers and fathers from theanguish that often follows it.
And I think when I look back onmy life, I'll rest secure in
(46:01):
the knowledge that I used mygifts to the best of my ability
to honor God, not myself, and todefend the babies.
Speaker 00 (46:09):
Well, like I said, Brad has been an inspiration for
me and so many other people.
50 years of dedicated serviceto the babies is just an
incredible accomplishment.
I want to encourage you, thelistener, to visit our website,
lifeissues.org, and there you'llbe able to send a message of
appreciation to Brad.
Celebrate his 50 years of doingthis and encourage him as he
(46:29):
moves on to a new chapter in hislife that's available again at
lifeissues.org to send him amessage of appreciation.
While you're at our website,lifeissues.org, I also want to
encourage you to make use of thefree resources and information
we have there regarding organdonations, specifically what you
need to know and do to takeyour name off the organ donor
(46:52):
registry.
Again, that's available atlifeissues.org.
Be sure to tune in next weekfor another straight talk on
life issues.
The public goes to the Department of Motor Vehicles
and they're asked, Do you wantto be an organ donor?
And they look at the brightlycolored posters that say, you
know, give the gift of life, bea good citizen.
And they're being asked to makeprobably one of the biggest
medical decisions of their lifeby someone at the DMV without
any type of information.
Speaker 00 (00:29):
Welcome back to Straight Talk on Life Issues.
I'm Victor Nievis.
As always, joined by BradMattis, president of Life Issues
Institute.
It's great to have you with usfor a very important
conversation on organ donation.
Speaker 02 (00:41):
Yeah, Victor, imagine you're lying in a
hospital bed, unable tocommunicate in any way.
You can hear everything goingon around you, but you can't
move or talk.
And then you hear the doctorsay your brain dead.
Speaker 00 (00:59):
Unfortunately, one that we know people have
experienced.
And you know, while most peopleassume that organs can only be
removed or transplanted afterall efforts to save the donor's
life have been exhausted, weknow that's not the case.
Organ donation has changed.
Speaker 02 (01:16):
It absolutely has.
And now a person whose braininjured and considered close to
death that doesn't necessarilymeet the criteria for brain
death may still qualify as anorgan donor.
Speaker 00 (01:29):
And you know, for organs to be considered viable,
the patient must be breathing,the heart must be pumping, and
the harvest cannot wait fordeath in the way that the public
perceives death.
Let's jump into it today withour guest, Dr.
Heidi Klesig.
She attended medical school atUW Madison, where she completed
a residency program inanesthesiology.
(01:50):
She was a founding partner ofthe Pain Clinic of Northwestern
Wisconsin and an instructor forthe International Spinal
Injection Society.
She now writes and speaks onthe ethics or lack thereof of
organ donation andtransplantation.
Dr.
Klesig, welcome to the show.
Speaker 01 (02:06):
Thank you so much for inviting me.
I'm delighted to be here.
Speaker 02 (02:19):
This is a very interesting topic that I'm sure
many of our listeners haveprobably never thought of.
So, first of all, I'd like toask is organ donation today
ethical or are lines beingcrossed in zeal to harvest those
organs and short supply?
Speaker 01 (02:36):
You know, organ donation is a big subject, and
there are ways to do itethically, but by and large,
what's going on is the public isbeing not informed about what
actually is happening behind theoperating room doors.
People who have been givendiagnoses like brain death are
(02:57):
being removed from ventilatorsand used as organ donors while
they are still alive.
Brain death has never had anyscientific basis.
It's a ethical choicemasquerading as a medical fact.
Speaker 02 (03:10):
Well, before we leave that topic, let's get into
the diagnosis of brain death.
Why is it that you are not fondof that?
Speaker 01 (03:18):
Well, I'll tell you, it sort of blindsided me.
I'll tell you how I learnedabout this myself.
When I was an anesthesiologyresident studying to become an
anesthesiologist, I came in fornight call one night and
reported for duty.
And they said, Klesig, gladyou're here.
We have a brain dead man up inICU, and we want you to come and
take him down for an organharvesting.
(03:39):
And I was a little stunned.
I sort of remembered that I hadheard a lecture about brain
death somewhere along the line,but I didn't have all the facts
right at my fingertips.
So I said to the doctor, Oh,brain death, huh?
Well, is there anythingdifferent about this I need to
know?
And he kind of laughed and herolled his eyes and said, Just
be sure someone has declared himbrain dead.
(04:02):
You know how eager thetransplant team can be.
Well, that wasn't veryreassuring.
So I went up to see my patient.
And you know, when I saw him inthe ICU, he looked like every
other ICU patient I had takencare of, and in fact, better
than most.
He was a young man about my ownage.
He had a motorcycle accident,he had a severe brain injury,
and yes, the neurologist haddeclared him to be brain dead.
(04:25):
But when I went to look at him,he was warm, he was breathing
with the help of a ventilator.
He had an excellent heart rateand blood pressure.
He had almost 100% oxygensaturation in his blood.
His skin was warm and supple.
He was making urine.
I mean, he he did not lookdead.
So I went back down to theoperating room and I found the
anesthesiologist who was goingto be supervising me for the
(04:47):
case.
And I presented it to him.
And he said, All right, what'syour anesthetic plan of care?
Well, you know, I was sobrainwashed at the time.
I mean, they told me the manwas dead.
And so, despite the evidence ofmy eyes, I believed my
authority.
So I said, Well, I think I'lluse a paralyzing agent so he
doesn't move during the surgery,right?
Now, think about that.
Why should we have to worryabout a dead person moving?
(05:10):
But I like, you know, I was ina state of cognitive dissonance,
I guess, at the time.
So I said, I'm going to use aparalyzing agent because, you
know, surgeons get kind ofcrabby when people are moving
and they're trying to operate.
And then I think I'll give himum some fentanyl as a powerful
painkiller to blunt any heartrate or blood pressure responses
that might damage his organs.
(05:31):
So my attendant looked at meand he said, Well, are you going
to give a drug to blockconsciousness?
I was a little stunned by that.
I said, Why would I do that?
Isn't he dead?
And he just gave me a long,slow look over his surgical mask
and he said, Why don't you giveone just in case?
And he walked away.
Well, I'll tell you, you know,to my shame and regret, I did
(05:53):
what I was told.
I mean, I knew something waswrong about this, but all my
authorities were telling me thisis the way we do it, this is
how it's done.
The operating room team wasscrubbed and ready to go, and I
just should have put up more ofa fuss, but I did what I was
told.
I took him to the operatingroom.
I gave him the anesthetic wehad discussed.
He reacted just like any otherpatient to the incisions and the
(06:18):
bone saws and the organremoval.
He required the same types andamounts of anesthesia as anyone
else.
And honestly, it's my regretover this incident that
motivates me now to be speakingto you today and to have a
website and to write a book andto try to inform the public.
I see my role as giving thepublic a seat at the table.
(06:38):
Because when I came to researchthis for myself, I was stunned
to find that for 50, 60 years,doctors, lawyers, philosophers,
PhDs have been hotly debatingwhether brain death is death,
whether donation aftercirculatory death donors are
actually dead at the time theirorgans are procured.
(06:58):
The ethics of this new form oftransplant called normothermic
regional perfusion or NRP.
But the public is never told.
I mean, the public goes to theDepartment of Motor Vehicles and
they're asked, do you want tobe an organ donor?
And they look at the brightlycolored posters that say, you
know, give the gift of life, bea good citizen, be altruistic.
(07:19):
And they're never given anyinformed consent.
They're not told any of thedetails or the facts.
And they're being asked to makeprobably one of the biggest
medical decisions of their lifeby someone at the DMV without
any type of information.
And I think that's wrong.
So that's what I'm trying to dois raise awareness for people
so they can make an informeddecision.
Speaker 02 (07:39):
Well, isn't the definition or diagnosis of brain
death a solid medical factualdiagnosis?
Speaker 01 (07:46):
Well, funny you should say that.
You know, the the most recentAmerican Academy of Neurology
brain death guideline that justcame out in 2023, in their
methods section, they come rightout and say, because of the
lack of high quality evidence onthe subject, this is a
consensus guideline determinedby essentially three rounds of
(08:11):
anonymous voting by panelistswho are screened to screen out
anybody who might disagree.
So absolutely not.
I mean, the brain death wasstarted back in 1968.
I mean, honestly, all throughhistory, you really didn't need
a doctor to tell you whensomeone was dead.
I mean, people determine deathat home, on the battlefield, at
(08:31):
the farm.
You could tell when someone isdead, right?
Most people understand death tobe the separation of the spirit
or the soul or the lifeprinciple from the material
body.
But because we don't have anyinstruments for detecting
immaterial changes, we go withthe loss of heartbeat, the loss
of breathing, and the passage oftime.
(08:53):
And that's how people havedetermined death for millennia.
But in 1968, 13 men at HarvardMedical School put out a
landmark article in the Journalof the American Medical
Association, and it's titled ADefinition of Irreversible Coma.
So these men thought we couldchange the definition and call
(09:17):
people who have previouslyalways been believed to be
alive, people who are in a comathat doctors think are probably
irreversible, as now beingsomehow dead already.
Now, this paper, it has noscientific references.
There were no tests, there wereno studies, there is no
evidence that these people in acoma are dead.
(09:38):
The only reason they said thatmaybe we should give them this
new diagnosis was utility.
They said if we could callthese people on a ventilator
dead already, it will serve tofree up ICU bets and it will
remove the controversy ofprocuring these people's organs
to put into somebody else.
(09:59):
And so for all of its history,there really has not been any
scientific evidence for it.
But what is really useful aboutredefining people morally,
ethically, and legally as beingdead, even though they have
beating hearts, they'remetabolizing, they're making
urine, they can even deliverhealthy babies.
If you define someone as beingdead, then you, by sleight of
(10:22):
hand, you meet the requirementsof what's called the dead donor
rule.
Now, the dead donor rule is nota law, but it's a worldwide
ethical maxim.
It says people must neither bealive when organs are removed,
nor may they be killed by theprocess of organ removal.
But if you redefine people asbeing dead already, this allows
(10:45):
organ procurement to skirt thedead donor rule just by fiat, by
sleight of hand.
Speaker 00 (10:51):
So, Dr.
Klesig, it's fair to say fromwhat you've said today that what
we as lay people think of whenwe hear the phrase dead is not
what the medical establishmentis using when they procure
people's organs.
Speaker 01 (11:04):
That's correct.
You know, when most people hearthe word dead, they think dead
in the sense of, you know, mydead pet cat or dog, right?
That dead in the in the waythat, you know, a squirrel on
the highway is dead.
But when doctors are talkingabout this brain death thing,
the legal standard that has beenset up for that is called the
Uniform Determination of DeathAct.
(11:26):
And that is in force in almostall 50 states.
It says that you to have adiagnosis of brain death, there
must be the irreversiblecessation of all functions of
the entire brain, including thebrain stem.
But honestly, no AmericanAcademy of Neurology brain death
guideline has ever followed thelaw on that.
(11:48):
They don't test, in fact, allfunctions of the entire brain.
They test that you're in acoma, they test a handful of
brainstem reflexes, and theytest whether you breathe when
disconnected from yourventilator.
So, in fact, the way doctorsdiagnose, according to the
protocol, does not follow thelegal standard.
Speaker 02 (12:08):
Can you explain the process that surgeons use to
harvest organs?
Speaker 01 (12:13):
First, they need to get someone to make this
diagnosis.
And so they follow a specificprotocol that you have to be
unresponsive, right?
When they call your name orshake you, you don't respond.
But now remember,unresponsiveness is not the same
as unawareness.
There are people who areinwardly aware, sort of locked
in within themselves, but unableto respond.
(12:36):
A recent study in the NewEngland Journal of Medicine
found 25% of people who doctorsthought were unconscious
actually were inwardly aware.
So doctors are not tremendouslygood at discovering whether
you're inwardly aware or not.
We can only test whether you'reable and willing to respond.
Then they give a painfulstimulus to see if you move.
(12:58):
And if you move to the painfulstimulus, they say, well, then
you're not brain dead.
But the guidelines says that itcan sometimes be challenging to
determine whether a patient'smovement is just a reflex or if
it's intentional.
And they they actually go on totell doctors using this
protocol, if you're not sure ifyour moving patient is still
(13:20):
alive, you should ask a friend.
They say, ask a colleague, andthen and then kind of put your
heads together and decide.
I mean, how scientific is that?
Then the only neurologic examthat is done, they check uh if
your pupils respond to light,they shoot uh water in your ears
to see if it makes your eyesdizzy, they check if you cough
or gag.
These are not all the functionsof the entire brain.
(13:41):
Okay.
I mean, honestly, our brains doa lot more than that, but
that's all they test.
And then the apnea test iswhere they take you off your
ventilator for 10 to 15 minutesto see if you breathe.
And they give parameters, youknow, for your blood gas, what
it should be with that.
But the guideline actually goeson to say that selection of
targets for the apnea test isarbitrary because there is no
(14:05):
scientific data demonstrating atwhat point you would breathe if
your brain was working when youhave a brain injury.
So the whole diagnosis isincorrect.
But then, you know, whensomeone like me takes that
person to the operating room,um, we give them anesthesia just
like anyone else.
We give them a paralyzing agentso they won't move.
(14:25):
We use narcotic drugs to bluntthe responses to pain that they
will have.
I can tell you from personalexperience, when there's an
incision, the heart rate and theblood pressure go up just like
anybody else.
The surgeons then go ahead andcool off and chill down a lot of
the organs that are going to betaken out for preservation, and
(14:46):
then they they go for theorgans that they're having
targeted depending on thetechnique that's being used.
Speaker 02 (14:52):
Well, now the average person, I think, who
signs those donor cards believesthat the person dies, the heart
stops beating, the family takesa few moments to say their
goodbyes, the dead body iswheeled in a nearby room, and
then they harvest the organs.
Is that what happens?
Speaker 01 (15:10):
So there's a type of organ donation called donation
after circulatory death.
And these people are not braindead, but they're not expected
to survive, or they have decidedthat their quality of life is
unacceptable and they want tohave their care withdrawn in a
way that will allow their organsto be procured.
(15:31):
So their death is essentiallyplanned to happen in a specific
time and place.
This is really a thinly veiledform of physician-assisted
death.
So these people often have uhlarge catheters put in their
groin and they're given drugslike blood thinners, uh, heparin
to preserve the organs, thingsthat actually aren't very good
(15:52):
for the patient.
They have to make these peopledo not resuscitate or DNR.
So again, this is a choice.
All of these people could beresuscitated, but a decision has
been made not to resuscitatethem.
So then they are taken to theoperating room nearby, their
ventilator is disconnected andtheir medical support is
(16:12):
withdrawn, and then doctors waitfor them to die, wait for that
heart to stop.
I mean, it's really fairlyghoulish.
And in instead of dying in thearms of your family with love
surrounding you, you're takendown to the operating room with
gloved gown and masked strangerswho are sitting there waiting
for you to pass away so they canbegin removing parts of you.
(16:33):
After your heart stops, doctorsgive a two to five minute
no-touch or wait period to besure your heart doesn't restart.
I mean, it depends on where youlive.
In my state of Wisconsin, it'stwo minutes.
In other states, it's fiveminutes.
Whether you're dead or alive isbased kind of on your geography
more than anything else.
And then if your heart doesn'tspontaneously restart, they
(16:56):
declare you dead and they beginthe organ procurement.
But the problem with this isthat it's well documented.
I mean, in fact, everybodyknows that people are routinely
resuscitated after two to fiveminutes of cardiac arrest.
And if you could still beresuscitated, you were never
dead.
And other countries, you know,understand this.
(17:17):
This donation after circulatorydeath is banned in Finland,
Germany, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Hungary, Lithuania, and Turkey.
So again, depending on whereyou live, you might be dead or
alive on geography, not based onmedicine.
And there's a case report frommy neighboring state of Illinois
that bears this out.
A young woman with Downsyndrome in Illinois suffered a
(17:39):
brain bleed, and she wasn'tbrain dead, but her family was
told she wasn't expected tosurvive, and they were told they
could make something good comeout of their tragedy and
consented to have her organsprocured at using this donation
after circulatory deathprotocol.
So this unfortunate young womanwas taken to the operating room
and her care was withdrawn.
Once her heart stopped, thephysician reached up under the
(18:02):
sterile drapes and listened toher heart for an additional two
minutes and didn't hear anyheartbeat.
So then they began to operateto get her kidneys.
But as doctors got into herabdomen and were cutting down to
her kidneys, they noticedsuddenly that there were pulses
in the aorta and the renalarteries, and the young woman
began to gasp for breath.
Well, I mean, now what do youdo, right?
(18:24):
Here we are.
So out of pure compassion, theygave her a massive overdose of
fentanyl and lorazepam, and thepulses stopped and she stopped
breathing, and she wassubsequently pronounced dead a
second time.
But you know, when the medicalexaminer looked at this case, I
mean, he had to say this was ahomicide, is what was his
declaration.
(18:44):
She had been killed by organprocurement.
She was not dead after twominute wait time.
And that's the thing.
Dr.
Ari Jaffe, who's a doctor inCanada, has done a literature
review and found people whospontaneously resuscitated
themselves after up to 10minutes of cardiac arrest.
So we know scientifically fromthe medical literature, at 10
(19:05):
minutes you might still be ableto be resuscitated.
And some of the patients thathe studied had made a complete
recovery.
So again, two to five minutesis a travesty.
And that's in the recent NewYork Times article, they had
multiple cases of this type ofproblem.
You know, Misty Hawkins wasone, you know, and they had that
in the New York Times recentdomination of donation after
(19:28):
circulatory death.
Misty was a similar case towhat I just described, a young
woman who choked while eating asandwich and had a low oxygen
brain injury, taken to thehospital, not brain dead, but
her parents were told that shewasn't going to survive.
And they didn't want theirdaughter to suffer.
And they thought they couldhelp somebody else out.
So they consented to this DCDprotocol.
(19:49):
Misty was taken to theoperating room, disconnected
from her care.
It took her 103 minutes tobecome pulseless.
It's just like a death watch.
It's horrible to think about.
Once her heart stopped, I thinkfor her they waited the whole
five minutes, which again is notlong enough, because when
doctors then took the bone sawand saw it open her breastbone,
(20:10):
they found her heart was beatingand Misty was breathing at that
time too.
Now, the really terrible thing,you know, the doctors walked
out, left someone else to stitchher up.
It's not clear if she was evergiven any anesthesia.
And her family was never told.
The organ procurementcoordinator called her mother on
the phone and said, gee, we'rewe're sorry.
(20:31):
It just didn't work out forMisty to become an organ donor.
The family, the Hawkins family,only found out what happened to
their daughter when the NewYork Times contacted them a year
later for comment.
What a horrible way to find outwhat had been done to your
child.
I mean, this has to stop.
This is wrong.
Speaker 02 (20:50):
They're putting people down like dogs.
Speaker 01 (20:52):
Well, dogs get it better.
I mean, dogs for sure get ananesthetic.
I have anesthesia journalarticles I can show you that
talk about the anesthetic careof organ donors.
I can show you an article thatmentions how to manage their
heart rate, their bloodpressure, how to blunt, you
know, any responses that mighthurt the organs.
It does not mention one wordabout actual anesthesia.
(21:16):
And that's the problem.
You know, many of these peoplemay just get paralyzing drugs
and drugs to manage the bloodpressure and maybe awake and
aware at some level as they'rebeing dismembered to death.
This could have happened to uhZach Dunlap.
I don't know if you rememberhim.
He was a famous case.
In 2007, Zach Dunlap was ayoung man who had a four-wheel
(21:37):
ATV rollover injury.
Uh, he had a severe injury.
I mean, he had brain tissuecoming out of his ear canal,
taken to the hospital, uh,declared to be brain dead.
The helicopter was landing withthe team to procure his organs.
But his cousin, it wasn't hishealthcare team, his cousin, who
was also a nurse, didn'tbelieve Zach was dead and ran
(22:00):
his closed plastic knife alongZach's foot, and Zach withdrew.
And so his cousin called thenurse over.
Come, come, look, my cousin'smoving.
But the nurse said, Well, youknow, they teach us in brain
death school that the patientcan be moving, but they're still
dead.
So then the cousin gave asecond stimulus, and this time,
you know, Zach pretty much tooka swing at him.
And the nurse said, Oh, wait,that movement crossed the
(22:22):
midline.
That might mean he actuallyisn't dead.
So the procedure was calledoff, and Zach made a full
recovery.
I mean, he got married, he hasa little girl, he works a job.
But he told people while he waslying there, he could hear
every word.
He said, I could hear thedoctors telling my parents that
I was brain dead, that I was notgoing to survive.
And I just got mad.
(22:43):
But there was nothing I coulddo.
I couldn't move, I couldn'tspeak, I couldn't sign, all I
could do was get extremelyangry.
And this shows the gravity ofthese correctly made brain death
diagnoses.
I put correctly in scare quotesbecause, of course, none of
these people are dead.
But if you follow the protocol,supposedly it's correctly done.
Zach Dunlap's case followed theprotocol, but he could hear
(23:06):
every word.
Now, if an anesthesiologist hadtaken him to the OR and just
used paralyzing agents, can youimagine the horror?
We have no idea how many peopleare going through this.
So again, this needs to stop.
Speaker 02 (23:18):
I'm outraged.
I just don't know what to sayafter you've shared this
information.
Dr.
Klesig, what is NRP?
Speaker 01 (23:26):
There's a variation of the donation after
circulatory death protocolcalled normal thermic regional
perfusion or NRP.
And this is very controversialeven among doctors and
hospitals, though it is going oncurrently as we speak in the
United States.
So in this case, their the goalis to preserve a functional
(23:47):
heart for donation.
So what they do is they declareyou dead according to the
circulatory standard first.
They do the two to five minutewait, but they want that heart
to be in good shape.
So they want to sort ofresuscitate it.
But if they resuscitate all ofyour organs, including your
brain, you might wake up.
(24:08):
So what they start surgery withis by clamping off the
circulation to the brain to makeyou brain dead on purpose.
And then they hook you up toECMO or to a bypass machine and
they do a full resuscitation onthe organs such that your heart
starts beating again in your ownchest.
Now, how dead are you if yourheart is beating again in your
(24:31):
own chest?
The legal standard, of course,is that you are supposed to be
declared dead because you hadthe irreversible cessation of
circulatory and respiratoryfunctions.
The fact that now your heart isbeating again shows that it
really wasn't that irreversible,was it?
But now the doctors are legallycovered because now you're
(24:52):
brain dead.
They've now declared you deadaccording to the neurologic
standard because they've donethat on purpose.
Now, even the American Collegeof Physicians, the world's
largest specialty medicalorganization, called for a pause
in NRP in 2021.
They said that the burden ofproof regarding the ethical and
(25:13):
legal propriety of this practicehas not been met.
But I'm here to tell you itcontinues.
It's been since 2021, and nopause has been initiated.
I mean, this is going on allaround the United States and
around the world, though, ofcourse, it is banned in those
countries that don't allow DCD.
Additionally, Australia hasdisallowed NRP because it again,
(25:37):
ethically and legalimproprieties are going on here.
Speaker 02 (25:41):
Is there any way for family members or the patient
to be assured that this isn'thappening?
Speaker 01 (25:47):
Don't be a registered organ donor, is my
recommendation.
I think it's unsafe and unwiseto be a registered organ donor
right now.
Now, again, I wouldwholeheartedly recommend if you
have a family member that needsa kidney and it's something you
feel led to do and you're asuitable match.
Living donation in which bothdonor and recipient remain alive
(26:11):
after the procedure iscompletely moral and ethical.
I mean, it's it's anextraordinary vocation.
Nobody is called upon to risktheir life for another.
But if if you feel led to dothat, I think that's a wonderful
thing.
You know, I think that we wouldby now have much more ethical
solutions if the public had beeninformed about all the problems
(26:31):
going on with brain death,circulatory death, NRP.
Also, we would have much bettercare for people with
neurological injuries.
We have been writing off allthe hard cases and using them as
organ donors rather thanfinding innovative ways of
helping people.
You know, the other thing Ialways want to say toward you
know the end of my discussion isI want to offer a message of
(26:55):
mercy to people who have beeninvolved in this practice.
You know, doctors, nurses.
There's no way doctors andnurses can personally
investigate everything they aretaught.
The knowledge they'reresponsible for is just too
vast.
So again, most doctors andnurses simply like I did, we
accept it on authority.
Our authorities tell us it'strue and we believe it.
(27:15):
And, you know, of course, youknow, arguments based on
authority or the majority arelogical fallacies, but we have
so much information that we weare sort of forced to accept a
lot sort of on the basis of ourauthorities.
People who have given a familymember to become an organ donor,
it's not your fault that youwere deceived.
I mean, you made the bestdecision you could with the
(27:37):
information you had available atthe time and the goodness of
your heart.
It is not your fault that youweren't told these things.
And people, you know, who havereceived an organ too.
I mean, you were not told theorigin of that organ.
You were you were given not allthe facts that you might have
wanted to have to make thedecision that you did.
But we're glad you're here.
I'm not at all saying thatpeople who have received an
(27:59):
organ did something wrong, but Ido think it's wrong that people
are not being given fullyinformed consent about these
things when they enter theprocess.
And I think that needs tochange.
Speaker 00 (28:09):
That leads to my next question, which is can this
process be done in an ethicalway for organs beyond a kidney,
for a heart or things like that?
Can it be done ethically?
Speaker 01 (28:22):
You know, you can actually living donate any
organ, almost every organ exceptthe heart, right?
You can't give your heart tosomeone else.
But the the good news is atotally implantable artificial
heart is now in clinical trials.
And I think that would be awonderful way to go.
I mean, you wouldn't have to bein all the anti-rejection drugs
and have risks of infection.
And I think it would ultimatelygive people greater success
(28:45):
over time.
I was fascinated to learnrecently you can do living lung
transplants.
What they do is they take alobe of the lung from each of
two donors and put those twolobes from two donors into the
recipient.
You can give lengths ofintestine from multiple donors.
You I mean, you can give a lobeof a liver, you can give a lobe
of a pancreas.
(29:06):
I mean, there are things thatcan be done and to do this
ethically.
And I and I think those thingsshould be pushed and highlighted
and that kind of researchfurthered.
Speaker 02 (29:14):
What is your take on efforts to use peg hearts
recently?
Think that actually happened.
Speaker 01 (29:21):
Yeah, I just wrote an op-ed about that for Life
Site News.
You know, I think what's goingon the way they're doing it
right now is it's a horribleimpingement of human rights.
So what they did in Chinarecently is they took a
brain-dead man, right?
And they found that he was sostable.
He was a great host to try tosee how an animal organ would
(29:42):
work.
Now, they took pig lung andthey had genetically modified it
by inserting certain humangenes and removing certain pig
genes.
I think that's a bitproblematic.
Making sort of human pigchimeras or hybrids is ethically
questionable practice.
But this So-called brain-deadman.
He was hemodynamically stablefor the nine days that the lung
(30:06):
from the pig was put in him.
He started making antibodiesand started rejecting the pig
organ.
Now, the Orwellian doublespeakhere is simply stunning.
How can a dead person be keptalive?
How can a dead person behemodynamically stable to
support an animal organ?
How can a dead person rejectthat organ and start making
(30:29):
antibodies?
Well, you know, in point offact, the man was not dead,
right?
This is this is an egregiousbreach of human rights.
And it's not just happening inChina.
A few years ago, doctors inAmerica also implanted
genetically modified pig kidneysinto two American men who were
declared brain dead.
And these men were given topflight ICU care.
(30:52):
They were so stable, theseso-called dead men, that these
organs went, one went over amonth before they this, you
know, they decided to terminatethe experiment, sacrifice the
patient and take him to the labfor pathological study.
So this is this is veryethically questionable.
And again, you have to have alot of cognitive dissonance to
(31:13):
go with the idea that thesepeople are actually dead.
There's a lot of ethicalquestions.
The other things, just as faras the animal organs that you
asked about, I have I haveproblems with making human pig
hybrids.
I think that's ethicallyquestionable.
The first American patient toreceive a genetically modified
pig heart actually died of a pigvirus that hitched a ride on
(31:35):
that heart.
So it is a concern that wecould be introducing animal
diseases into, you know, atleast into the immunosuppressed
recipient of the organ, possiblyinto the general population.
Is this a way, you know, thatwe're going to introduce more
animal diseases into the humanpopulation?
There's a lot of questions thatreally have to be answered and
(31:57):
aren't being answered.
I mean, scientists are justcontinuing merely along trying
these things.
Speaker 00 (32:02):
Dr.
Klesig, is there's individualsout there who, out of pure
intentions, they want to be anorgan donor.
They want to help other people.
And with what we've heardtoday, obviously they're going
to be reevaluating maybe the waythat they go about doing that.
What advice do you have forthose individuals who want to
give the gift of life, as we'veall seen at the DMV, but are
(32:22):
really concerned about whatwe've just heard?
Speaker 01 (32:24):
You know, the good thing is living donation, as
I've mentioned, is a wonderfulthing to do.
And then we have not yet talkedabout tissue donation.
Now, organs, things like heart,lungs, liver, and kidneys, are
very dependent on a continuoussupply of oxygen through the
circulation.
And as soon as that stops, theorgans very quickly begin to
decompose and become unsuitablefor transplants.
(32:47):
So, in point of fact, fororgans, you cannot take an organ
from a dead person.
Tissues, however, now when adoctor says tissues, we're not
meaning puffs and Kleenex,right?
We're talking about things likeskin, bone, uh, corneas, heart
valves, this sort of thing.
Tissues are much more resilientto an absence of circulation
and can be removed from a personwhose spirit has departed, who
(33:10):
is biologically all dead.
So you can be a tissue donoronce you are biologically gone.
There are some caveats withthat.
I would not recommend that yoube a registered donor even for
tissue.
And here's why.
A reporter in Californiarecently wrote an article in the
LA Times showing that somepeople's death investigations
(33:34):
had been up-ended because organprocurement teams were able to
have access to the body before acoroner's autopsy.
So there were people like thefamily of John Flath.
He was a young man in Army ROTCwho just collapsed during a
workout.
He was a registered organ andtissue donor because he died
outside of the hospital.
(33:54):
He was not able to do organdonation, but organ procurement
took his body and they took skinbone heart valves before the
coroner could see why John haddied, leaving his family without
closure or answers because hisheart was basically so destroyed
from that tissue removal thatthe coroner could no longer tell
(34:16):
his family why John had passedaway.
The other one that the reporterin California came up with was
um Christy Rettinman, thedaughter of former Major League
Baseball player and coach MervRettenman.
She was in sort of an abusiverelationship with her boyfriend,
and there had been multiplepolice calls between the two of
them.
She came into the hospital andhad obviously had some type of
(34:38):
head injury.
She had bruises on her body.
But again, Christy was aregistered donor, and so the
organ procurement took her bodybefore the coroner's autopsy,
leaving the coroner with such ascanty corpse, I guess, the
skin, the bones, things had beenremoved, that he could no
longer say with certaintywhether her death was a
homicide.
And so justice was never servedfor the retinmans.
(35:01):
I mean, the man got awayscot-free.
So again, whereas it's allright to take tissues after
biological death, I would neverdo this as a registered donor.
Simply tell your family, yourhealthcare surrogate, put it in
your end-of-life documents thatonce all their questions are
answered, they know that yourdeath was not a result of a
(35:21):
crime.
Your family can release yourcorpse to become a tissue donor
if you would like to do this.
That is just fine.
Speaker 00 (35:28):
Where else can we find more information about
organ donation?
Speaker 01 (35:31):
You know, what I always urge people to do, you
know, none of us like to thinkabout death.
We'd rather put it off.
You know, how many of us havemade out a will?
We don't want to think aboutthese things.
But the problem with that isthen you get blindsided, right?
And if you're sitting in ahospital, you know, at the
bedside of a loved one, on aventilator, you haven't slept,
(35:52):
you haven't eaten, you're you'renot in a position to make you
know really great choices atthat point.
Your emotions are going to beraw.
So even if it's uncomfortable,I do recommend people look at
this information now.
I've written a couple of books.
Uh, the first I wrote with myco-author Christopher Bagash, R
N, and that's called HarvestingOrgans and Cherishing Life.
(36:14):
That's written for lay people.
It's very easy to understand.
I've given we give some ofthese examples I talked about
today.
My second book issemi-technical.
It's very good if you want, youknow, chapter and verse, it's
fully referenced.
If you're a doctor or a nurseor want to give it to your
doctor or nurse, it's called thebrain death fallacy.
Take a look at some of theinformation and share it and
(36:35):
talk about it and think about itand be ready.
You know, when the worst day ofyour life happens, you don't
want to be unprepared.
Speaker 02 (36:42):
Well, Dr.
Klesig, for those listeners whoare registered organ donors and
want to reverse that decisionafter hearing everything you
have to say, how do they dothat?
Speaker 01 (36:52):
On our website, if you scroll down the homepage,
you know, there is a button thatsays, How do I get off the
donor list?
And we go through how thatprocess can happen.
The other thing on that that issort of important for people to
know is that the UniformAnatomical Gict was revised in
2006, such that now you reallyneed to have a specific refusal
(37:17):
to donate.
Because if you come into thehospital and you're
incapacitated and your familycan't be found, the hospital
administrator is given the powerto donate your body on your
behalf, unless there's aspecific refusal to donate.
And this becomes important.
There's a case being sued rightnow in New York of grandmother
(37:38):
Miriam Poyas de Baldrick, had a,I think she had a bit of
dementia.
She wandered away from her homeand was struck by a subway.
She was taken to the hospital.
And even though her family saidshe had some information in her
pocket to tell people who shewas, and they had filed a, you
know, missing vulnerable adultreport, the hospital couldn't
(37:58):
find anybody.
And because Miriam didn't havea specific refusal to donate,
they took her organs.
And now the family is suingabout this.
So the other thing that we haveis we have links to our sister
organization, the HealthcareAdvocacy and Leadership
Organization or Halo Group.
And they have an excellentend-of-life document.
Plus, they have this handy uh Irefuse to donate wallet card
(38:21):
that you can keep with you inyour wallet, and on the back you
can sign and have it witnessedto show people that I am a
refusing to be an organ donor incase what happened to Grandma
Miriam would happen to you.
That way you are protected thatway as well.
Speaker 02 (38:35):
But it's not good enough just to take that
designation off your driver'slicense, is it?
Speaker 01 (38:40):
Not if you're unable to have your wishes explained
and they can't find your next ofkin.
No, it's not.
You need, according to theUniform Anatomical Gift Act, you
now need a specific refusal.
And I would even put that inyour electronic medical record
when you see your clinician nexttime.
Just ask that they add that yourefuse to be an organ donor.
It would be good to have itthere as well.
Speaker 02 (38:59):
Thank you so much, Dr.
Klestig, for joining us andsharing this wealth of
information.
Speaker 01 (39:05):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 00 (39:17):
Well, Brad, today's conversation has been many
things.
It's been very informative.
It's also been a little bitmortifying to hear these stories
and to think about how manypeople have unfortunately had
decisions made on their behalfby a medical staff that was
interested in taking theirorgans rather than saving their
(39:38):
life.
Speaker 02 (39:38):
Yeah, and you use the word mortifying.
There must be a word in theEnglish language to really
underscore that becausemortifying seems to be an
understatement regarding whatthey're doing there.
And I just find it hard tobelieve after all these years,
many physicians think that MDstands for medical deity, and
(40:01):
they're making life and deathdecisions, not in what's best
for the patient, but what's bestfor the person, the patient, to
receive those organs.
Speaker 00 (40:12):
And in doing so, it sounds like to me they're taking
advantage of people who do nothave informed consent.
But these are people who signedup to be an organ donor out of
the pureness of their heart.
They wanted to save a life,they wanted to give that gift of
life.
And rather than their selflesswillingness to do that, rather
than that being honored, it'sbeing taken advantage of.
Speaker 02 (40:33):
And I think it's important to you know, reiterate
what Dr.
Klesig said.
She's she's not blamingrecipients of organs.
She says they're not doinganything wrong, they are being
victimized as well as others,just in a different way.
They're not being told thedetails of the reality of what's
(40:54):
behind those donors.
Considering the informationthat we've shared these past two
weeks, many of you may behaving second thoughts, and I
hope you do, whether or not youwant to be a donor.
Now, it's not good enough tosimply take that insignia off
your driver's license.
What you need to do is go intoyour individual state to a
(41:16):
specific website and fill outthe proper form to be taken off.
Otherwise, they will beharvesting your organs perhaps
without your permission.
And to help you with that, wehave links to every state
website where you can removeyour name from being an organ
donor.
But Victor, it's been anabsolute honor and privilege to
(41:40):
share crucial developing storieswith our listeners every week
and in-depth ways in which wecan get that information across.
So, you, the listener, I hopeand pray that you will take what
we have given you over the lastcouple of years and share that
with other individuals, becausethen you can magnify our voice
(42:02):
in ways that will make adifference and save lives.
I'm pleased that we're endingthis my uh role in this program
every week with such acompelling program.
This is an issue I've beenconcerned about for a long time.
Since we did our initialresearch on this 10 years ago
through a TV production.
Speaker 00 (42:22):
Brad, the pro life movement has really been a
tremendous journey for you.
And this is a bit of asentimental episode since this
will be the last time thatyou'll be hosting Straight Talk
on life issues.
I know I will certainly missyou.
Our listeners will certainlymiss you as you move on to
retirement.
50 years is an inspiration tomyself and so many others, the
(42:44):
dedicated service to the babies.
And it's one of those things,Brad, I just have to imagine
when you walk through thosepearly gates, that is a well
done, my good and faithfulservant that's coming.
Speaker 02 (42:54):
Well, I'm looking forward to being surrounded by
the babies that we uh uh work tosave, that's for sure.
Speaker 00 (43:00):
So share with us just one story that's impacted
you maybe the most throughoutyour time in the pro-life
movement.
Speaker 02 (43:07):
Well, the one that I would say most impactful was
when I received a handwrittenletter from a man whose younger
brother had died by suicideafter his girlfriend had two
abortions.
And his mom found him hangingfrom the rafter in her garage.
A suicide note said he couldn'tlive with the anguish and pain
(43:28):
of losing his children toabortion.
Now, God used this letter toplace a burden and passion on my
heart for grieving fatherseverywhere.
And I became a founding memberof the Men in Abortion Network
and have lectured on thisthroughout the United States and
around the world, actually.
And the symptoms are always thesame no matter what the country
(43:50):
is.
We just can't let men, we can'tlet fathers be forgotten
victims of abortion.
They're not alone, and there'shope and there's healing.
Speaker 00 (44:00):
Absolutely.
And with that passion that youhave, I mean, you're retiring as
president of Life IssuesInstitute, but you're not going
to be able to step away from thepro-life movement.
Share with us some of yourfuture plans for pro-life
advocacy.
Speaker 02 (44:14):
Well, one thing I'm working on is to be a volunteer
snuggler.
And this is somebody who holdsbabies in the NICU of hospitals.
So for me, getting lap timewith a baby always makes it a
good day.
And of course, I'll have thehonorary title of President
Emeritus of Life IssuesInstitute, and I'll continue my
(44:35):
volunteer capacity as presidentof the International Rights to
Life Federation.
That'll probably meaninternational trips of one or
two a year.
And I will speak on men inabortion when asked, and
probably do writing.
Speaker 00 (44:49):
What would be some advice that you have for the
next generation of pro-lifeadvocates?
Speaker 02 (44:54):
Well, first of all, I'd encourage you kids to know
the history of the movement soyou can better build on its
future.
And bring your enthusiasm, yourknowledge, your technology,
your boldness to the table, anddon't let anyone tell you you
don't have a voice.
But you know, with a voicecomes great responsibility.
(45:15):
So make sure that what you do,because the stakes are so high
that you help to protect thebabies and not hinder the
collective efforts of everyone.
You know, you don't have theluxury of being sloppy or lazy
because lives are at stake.
Speaker 00 (45:31):
Absolutely.
And what would be one lastpiece of information that you
would like to share with ourlistener?
Speaker 02 (45:37):
Well, over the last 50 years, I probably served in
every capacity in the pro-lifemovement that's out there.
But I have to say it's been acomplete honor and privilege to
serve to protect babies fromabortion and to protect the
mothers and fathers from theanguish that often follows it.
And I think when I look back onmy life, I'll rest secure in
(46:01):
the knowledge that I used mygifts to the best of my ability
to honor God, not myself, and todefend the babies.
Speaker 00 (46:09):
Well, like I said, Brad has been an inspiration for
me and so many other people.
50 years of dedicated serviceto the babies is just an
incredible accomplishment.
I want to encourage you, thelistener, to visit our website,
lifeissues.org, and there you'llbe able to send a message of
appreciation to Brad.
Celebrate his 50 years of doingthis and encourage him as he
(46:29):
moves on to a new chapter in hislife that's available again at
lifeissues.org to send him amessage of appreciation.
While you're at our website,lifeissues.org, I also want to
encourage you to make use of thefree resources and information
we have there regarding organdonations, specifically what you
need to know and do to takeyour name off the organ donor
(46:52):
registry.
Again, that's available atlifeissues.org.
Be sure to tune in next weekfor another straight talk on
life issues.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.